Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Fieldcore Service Solutions ... vs Acit, Circle- 10(2), New Delhi on 4 December, 2020 cites

Parveen Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs Addl. Cit, Special Range- 7, New Delhi on 29 March, 2019

"Having heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record, we find it as undisputed fact that Engineers India Limited is a Government company. It has several segments which also include 'Turnkey project'. Page 1 onwards of the paper book is a copy of the 9 ITA No.7692/Del./2017 Annual report of Engineers India Limited. In our considered opinion, this company cannot be included in the list of final comparables. The reason is that Engineers India Limited earned income from turnkey projects by successfully completing the project of other Public Sector Undertakings. In that sense of the matter, the related party transactions are much more than the filter applied by the TPO. We, therefore, order for the exclusion of this company from the list of comparables. Similar view has been taken by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in Thyssen Kmpp Industries India (P) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT (2013) 154 TTJ 689 Hum). Such Tribunal order has been approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, a copy of which has been placed on record. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in Bechtel India (P) Ltd.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Cit vs Ekl Appliances Ltd on 29 March, 2012

11. The Court finds that the entire focus of the AO was on just one AY and the figure of receivables in relation to that AY can hardly 12 ITA No.7692/Del./2017 reflect a pattern that would justify a TPO concluding that the figure of receivables beyond 180 days constitutes an international transaction by itself. With the Assessee having already factored in the impact of the receivables on the working capital and thereby on its pricing/profitability vis-à-vis that of its comparables, any further adjustment only on the basis of the outstanding receivables would have distorted the picture and re-characterised the transaction. This was clearly impermissible in law as explained by this Court in CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 241 (Delhi).
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 352 - R V Easwar - Full Document

Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd New ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax -I, New Delhi on 10 December, 2014

6.5 Grounds No. 8 & 9 relates to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The facts in brief qua the issue in dispute are that the assessee company requested foreign Associated Enterprise to second their employees to India to work for a limited period, under supervision and control of the assessee. According to the assessee, under an agreement the employees seconded by the foreign AE were acting as employee of the assessee and the assessee is responsible to pay salary of such employees as well as their travelling and conveyance cost for the employment period. During the year under consideration, the assessee reimbursed travelling and conveyance cost and salary cost of such employees to Associated Enterprise. The assessee did not deduct tax on travelling and conveyance cost on the ground that same are 'pure reimbursement' of the expenses paid by the foreign Associated Enterprise in respect of such employees, however with respect to the salary cost, the tax was deducted under section 192 of the Act. The Learned Assessing Officer in draft assessment order, however was of the view that seconded employees continued to remain employees of the Associated Enterprise and were not employees of the assessee during the period of the secondment. According to him, amount shown as reimbursement to Associated Enterprises are actually in the nature of Fee for Technical Services and since there was no employer-employee relationship between the assessee and the secondees, in view of non- deduction of the tax on such payment, same were liable for disallowance. The Learned Assessing Officer also relied on the 14 ITA No.7692/Del./2017 decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Centica India Offshore P Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 364 ITR 336, where in the SLP filed by the assessee has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 227 Taxman 368. The Learned DRP following its earlier orders upheld the disallowance, observing as under:
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1